Get device details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds context that the data is static and lists the fields returned, complementing the readOnlyHint annotation. It also signals that the tool does not report dynamic state by pointing to get_state, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main purpose and ending with a pointer to an alternative. Excellent structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, output schema present, and annotations clarifying safety, the description fully covers usage, scoping, and alternatives. No gaps for normal use cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the device parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but the schema already fully documents the optional parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as static hardware/firmware details for a Twinkly device, enumerating product, model, LED count, and more. It also distinguishes itself from get_state by naming that sibling for current mode/color/brightness.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for static details) and directs to get_state for current mode/color/brightness, providing a clear alternative. This is sufficient guidance for the primary sibling relationship.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.